coberst

What is Moral Folk Theory?

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences are:

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

What is Moral Law Folk Theory?

Moral Law Folk Theory, encoded within objectivist philosophy, holds “that there are absolute moral laws, that they can be discovered by reason, and that they can be applied directly and objectively to real situations.”

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims and I agree that “it is morally irresponsible to think and act as though we possess a universal, disembodied reason that generates absolute rules, decision-making procedures, and universal or categorical laws by which we can tell right from wrong in any situation we encounter.”

Folk Theories are based upon the book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson Philosophy in the Flesh

Moral Law Folk Theory is based upon the book by Mark Johnson Moral Imagination

Zack

SGCS comes across as a condescending basis of authority to support progressive thinking “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

It seems to be based on a concept of a moving target that cannot be defined. The very comparison of the theory to what you may view inferior to what you view superior is revealing of your condescension "Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness." You're dumb if you don't agree with me since I'm sophisticated and you're a hick.

SGCS seems to be a self appointment of superiority that allows one to make up rules as you go along as the progressive court does? Under this concept emotions are the deciding factor and justification for ruling is made up as you go along to meet your conclusion. Rulings may be based on how another nation solved the same situation, if it meets your emotion's goal... Progressive judgment is preset, we put our superior heads together and come up with an outcome and then write the justification that supports that conclusion. Of course, since progressive jurisprudence is superior, kind of like comparing classical music to country music constructionist jurisprudence, it is correct and constructionist jurisprudence is an incorrect approach.

Progressive jurisprudence, SGCS jurisprudence seems to be responsible for deciding pedophile cases as cases of two victims, the child is the victim of the case subject who is a victim of illness. Emotion is applied and superior jurisprudence determines the subject requires doctor's treatment and should not be punished for the harm caused the child. The subject is faultless since he had no control over his body, he is a malfunctioning citizen that requires repair. It is unfortunate the victim endured the results of the malfunctioning mental patterns of the other citizen.

__________________
http://www.patriotdepot.com/images/p...er_Sticker.jpg

pensacola_niceman

Where do you come up with this stuff?

coberst

Books, try it, you might find it to be excitimg.

pensacola_niceman

Nah, my specialty is posting stupid sarcastic horeshit. I don't need a book for that. Besides, books are so archaic with the internet providing you with all the knowledge you could care to seek.

Stuart Woods, Lee Childs, and Clive Cussler novels being the exception of course.

Zack

I was reflecting on my last paragraph in my response and tied together the first and last paragraphs to come up with what I think SGCS blurring of the right and wrong is... in the first paragraph I used the quote of the Supreme Court nominee that alludes that she can come to a better decision based on her exposure than a white man... and in the last post I used an example of extreme judgment that has taken place in VT by progressive Judge(s). If you put the three together you come out with grey verses black and white when you contrast right and wrong to traditional jurisprudence where precedence is basis for ones understanding of the law. Under SGCS or more explicitly progressive superior jurisprudence wrong wouldn't necessarily be wrong by a certain class of people while it may be wrong by another class of people... an example, a superior SGCS judge(s) may look at a violation of a minority accused and take "into account" logical and reasonable (in their minds) justifications of why this person may have been "forced into a favorable environment for crime" where a person from a majority or different class would not have this available logic and reason to eliminate him/her from the law. If a middle class white person robs a rich guy on the street he would be judged under "normal" jurisprudence but if a black person from a disadvantaged robbed the subject of the first offense he would be held to a lesser fault because society had socially restricted his advancement to the level of the first offender. Confused yet or is everyone with me?

__________________
http://www.patriotdepot.com/images/p...er_Sticker.jpg

coberst

I blame my generation and my children's generation for not better preparing my grandchildren's generation to manage the disaster that we have left for them. You may well curse us for these learning handicaps that our educational system has created.

coberst

I think that you are creating a confusing mess when you mix cognitive science with political ideology. I try not to interject religious or political ideology into my threads.

pensacola_niceman

I think I'm in your children's generation (51). I am an electrical engineer and have to read a lot of technical documents. Hard science appeals to me and I have little interest in deep philsophical discussions - epecially something that sounds as silly as "moral folk theory."

You can blame the desegregation of the school systems during the sixties and seventies for any inadequacies in my education.

Of course, I can hear it now. I will be called a bigot and a racist for saying that.

pensacola_niceman

We may not like the fact that most people couldn't even spell "metaphysician" - let alone be one. The knowledge that we seek is mostly in the interest of making money - that's what a monetary-based economy does to people. No worries, the rich cigar flickers will continue to laugh at us all.